WORK-FAMILY BALANCE AS A POTENTIAL STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE: A
HOTEL GENERAL MANAGER PERSPECTIVE
Presented to:
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research
Presented by:
Qu Xiao, Ph.D.
School of Hotel and Tourism Management The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong (852) 2766 4033
FAX: (852) 2362 9362 [email protected]
&
John W. O’Neill, MAI, CHE, Ph.D. Associate Professor
School of Hospitality Management The Pennsylvania State University
233 Mateer Building University Park, PA 16802-1307
(814) 863-8984 FAX: (814) 863-4257
December 2008
This is the Pre-Published Version.
2
Work-Family Balance as a Potential Strategic Advantage: A Hotel General
Manager Perspective
ABSTRACT
This qualitative study is an exploratory attempt to investigate hotel general
managers’ (GMs) perceived work-family balance/interface issues from a strategic
perspective. Based on 49 in-person, in-depth, in-office interviews with full-service hotel
GMs, we identify current strategic issue perceptions (SIPs) of hotel GMs and explore
potential relationships between these SIPs and work-family issues in the hotel industry.
Findings suggest that work-family issues, including workplace flexibility, turnover,
knowledge management and career advancement, are influenced by hotel culture and the
GM’s management style; and when human resources are perceived as a competitive
advantage by the hotel GMs, the work-family issues are indeed related to the hotel GM’s
perceived strategic issues.
Key Words: Perceived Strategic Issues; Hotel Culture; Work-family Balance; Human
Resources Management
INTRODUCTION
Strategic management is critical to an organization’s success. In the strategic
management process, organizational executives scan their operating environment,
surmise strategic issues from their direct observation of their environment, and then
formulate and operationalize strategy based on the identified strategic issues (e.g., David,
3
2001; Hambrick, 2004; Mintzberg, 1990). Strategic issues usually include external
opportunities and threats, and when linked with organizational strengths, lead to strategic
advantage for the firm. In the literature of strategic management, strategic advantage is
commonly referred as the ability of the firm to favorably distinguish itself from its
competition (e.g., Christensen & Fahey, 1984). Among organizational resources, human
resources and organizational culture are regarded as important sources of sustainable
competitive advantage. Moreover, the literature suggests that organizational culture and
human resources are closely related because organizational culture significantly affects
the behavior and actions of a firm’s members (Lado & Wilson, 1994). Since an
organization’s strategic plan and actions are largely affected by the strategic issues
perceived by its top managers, strategic issue perceptions (SIPs), or managerial
perceptions of strategic issues that would affect an organization’s long-term success, have
received considerable attention in the literature.
It is recognized that management jobs in the hotel industry are noted for having
characteristics known to be detrimental to family life, e.g., long and irregular hours,
emphasis on face time, frequent relocation, etcetera (Harris, O’Neill, Cleveland, &
Crouter, 2007). Such detrimental characteristics are regarded as significantly related to
some of the most important human resources issues in the industry, such as turnover.
Realizing that helping employees to balance their work and family lives can strengthen
an organization’s human resources quality, several hotel companies have started to
implement family-friendly programs and practices such as job sharing. It has been
suggested that implementing family-friendly policies and practices into organizational
strategic management and changing to a more family-friendly culture could enable hotel
4
organizations to gain competitive advantage through reduced absenteeism, reduced
turnover, and superior retention and productivity of employees (Crouter, O’Neill,
Almeida, & Cleveland, 2004; Harris et al., 2007). However, due to the lack of rigorous
research and a guiding framework, the effectiveness of hotel companies’ work-family
practices, and relationships between their work-family practices, organizational culture
and strategic management processes are not well understood. How such work-family
practices may affect hotel organizational context, be a component of hotels’ strategic
management processes, and whether leaders of hotel companies factor work-family
issues into their SIPs/consider them as sources of competitive advantage are among the
important but unanswered questions.
Therefore, this exploratory study seeks to identify the current SIPs of hotel
general managers (GMs) and to explore the potential relationship between work-family
issues and the SIPs of hotel GMs. The fundamental question the authors set out to answer
is: how do hotel GMs identify work-family issues as they relate to strategic issues?
Moreover, this study investigates whether hotel culture plays a role in the relationship
between work-family issues and SIPs. Based on the data collected from in-person
interviews regarding these topics with 49 full-size hotels’ GMs across the United States,
this qualitative study proposes a conceptual framework that outlines the relationships
between SIPs, represented as competitive advantages, and several work-family issues,
including workplace flexibility, turnover, and career advancement. In the following
sections, a literature review is presented to introduce the key constructs of the study,
specifically strategy, SIPs, organizational culture, and work-family issues. These key
constructs are then further discussed in the setting of the hotel industry and the research
5
questions are provided. Following the theoretical background and research questions, we
present the research method, and information regarding data collection and data analysis.
Then the results of the study, both first order and second order analyses, are offered, and
several key findings are discussed. Finally, conclusions, limitations, and suggestions for
future research are presented.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Strategy, Competitive Advantage, and SIPs
Since Chandler’s (1962) cornerstone work regarding the importance of strategy,
the topic of strategy has been widely recognized as fundamental to an organization’s
success, and numerous strategy researchers have indicated that strategic analysis, more
generally referred to as “SWOT” analysis, which systematically investigates an
organization and its environment, is essential for an organization to develop and execute
sound strategies. That is, the organization must develop the strategies through a process
of executive management matching an organization’s internal strengths and weakness
with external, or environmental, opportunities and threats facing the organization, in an
effort to achieve long-term organizational coping and survival (e.g., David, 2001;
Harrison, 2003; Mintzberg, 1990). It is generally accepted that internal strengths and
weakness can be examined through internal resources, including financial, human,
physical, knowledge, and general organizational ones, while external opportunities and
threats can be categorized broadly such as economic, social and cultural, political and
governmental, technological, and competition and customer-related forces (e.g., Enz &
Harrison, 2004; David, 2001).
6
In the strategic management literature, competitive advantage normally refers to
the ability of a firm to favorably distinguish itself from competition (e.g., Christensen &
Fahey, 1984). Rooted in the resource-based view of strategy, previous research revealed
that analysis of internal resources can enable managers to determine an organization’s
potential or realized sources of competitive advantage (Harrison, 2003; King, Fowler, &
Zeithaml, 2001). The original resource-based view of strategy suggests that
organizational resources that are rare, valuable, non-substitutable, and imperfectly
imitable form the basis of an organization’s sustained competitive advantage (e.g.,
Barney, 1991). In addition, King et al (2001) propose that four characteristics are
essential to determine whether a resource is a sustainable competitive advantage:
tacitness reflects the extent to which the resource resists imitation; robustness
characterizes the resource’s insensitivity to environmental change; embeddedness of the
resource affects its transferability to the competitors; and consensus reflects shared
understanding or common perceptions within a group. Among all organizational
resources, human resources are regarded as an important source of sustainable
competitive advantage because successful human resource management can facilitate the
development of competencies that are firm specific, produce complex social relationships,
are embedded in a firm’s history and culture, and generate tacit organizational knowledge
(Lado & Wilson, 1994).
Strategic management researchers and practitioners have generally agreed that the
strategy development process includes managers scanning their operating environment,
surmising strategic issues from their direct observation of their operating environment,
and then operationalizing a strategy based on the identified strategic issues (e.g.,
7
Hambrick, 2004; Mintzberg, 1990; O’Neill et al., 2004). It is therefore clear that
managers, as a result of their environmental scanning, form their perceptions of strategic
issues (strategic issue perceptions, or “SIPs”) before developing the strategies. An
important assumption of this conceptualization of strategy formulation is that
organization management can and does accurately assess its external environment.
However, evidence suggests that management does not consistently do so (Abrahamson
& Fombrun, 1994). It has been revealed that the managers’ environment scanning, issue
identification, and interpretation process are of critical importance because the
managements’ SIPs significantly influence the development of an organization’s long-
term organizational strategies for growth and survival (e.g., Hambrick, 2004; O’Neill et
al., 2004). As a focal interest of our research, a SIP has been defined by Dutton, Fahey,
and Narayanan (1983) as “an emerging development which in the judgment of some
strategic decision makers is likely to have a significant impact on the organization’s
present or future strategies.” It is suggested that SIPs relate particularly to opportunities,
threats, strengths, weaknesses and competitive advantages (Mintzberg, 1990; O’Neill et
al., 2004). It is suggested that SIPs may be developed either directly from one’s
experiences, or indirectly by being passed along by members of a reference group or
culture (O’Neill et al., 2004). Previous research indicates that the external environment,
composed of factors located outside of the organization, affects managers’ SIPs regarding
what is important in relation to such factors as economic, social, technological, political,
and competitive trends (O’Neill et al., 2004).
As in other industries, SIPs play a critical role in the development of strategies for
hotel companies (O’Neill et al., 2004; Simons & Namasivayam, 1999). O’Neill et al.
8
(2004) suggest that hotel managers tend to choose to selectively ignore certain issues
while focusing their attention on other issues. The primary reason for this selectivity is
that managers are confronted with substantial amounts of information regarding the
environment, and much of this information is ambiguous. Therefore, the formulation of
certain SIPs can be affected by a number of factors, such as the hotel managers’
perceptions regarding which type of hotels they are in, which competitive set their hotels
belong to, and their previous employment background (O’Neill et al., 2004). Some
empirical research in the hotel industry has explored the SIPs of hotel executives with a
general interest in the application of the environmental scanning process in the hospitality
industry (Costa, 1995; Costa & Teare, 1994). More specifically, Olsen, Murthy, and
Teare (1994) and Simon and Namasivayam (1999) have explored the threat and
opportunity perceptions of hospitality executives. O’Neill et al.’s (2004) research,
although focusing on the effect of macroculture on hotel executives’ SIPs, incorporates a
study in which hotel managers provided information regarding their opinions of the most
important strategic issues facing the lodging industry. One of the most striking results of
this research is the dominance of employee-oriented issues: three out of the top five more
important strategic issues are “hiring qualified people”, “training employees”, and
“motivating employees”. However, no empirical research in the hotel industry has
examined SIPs from the perspectives of competitive advantage and human resources
management, or specifically work-family issues.
Organizational Culture
9
Organizational culture has been used as a holistic construct describing the
complex set of knowledge structures which organization members use to perform tasks
and general social behavior (Hofstede, Neuijen, Ohayv, & Sanders, 1990; Gregory, 1983).
According to Schein’s (1985) widely cited definition, organizational culture is “a pattern
of basic assumptions that a given group has invented, discovered, or developed in
learning to cope with its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, and that
have worked well enough to be considered valid, and therefore, to be taught to new
members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to these problems”.
Organizational culture is affected by and impacts many aspects of the
organization, including structure, role expectations and job descriptions, how to act on
the job, how to solve problems, who makes decisions in various situations, how to think
about and behave toward coworkers and supervisors, and industry norms and practices
(e.g., Hofstede et al., 1990). Researchers have also suggested relatively clear and direct
relationships between business strategy and organizational culture. For instance, Saffold
(1988) views strategy formulation as an outcome of organizational culture, while Weick
(1985) suggests that business strategy and organizational culture are essentially
synonymous, because they are both “deeply ingrained patterns of management behavior”,
and they both emerge “out of the cumulative effect of many informed actions and
decisions taken daily and over years by many employees”.
Organizational culture has also long been revealed as directly linking to
competitive advantages and SIPs (Schuler & Jackson, 1987; Snell, 1992). According to
Jones (1983), organizational culture may contribute to firm’s competitive advantage by
reducing the uncertainty and ambiguity inherent in strategic decisions and actions. In
10
addition, it is suggested that organizational culture may reduce the transaction costs
entailed in human resources management by articulating a set of broad, tacit rules and
values that serve to unify and regulate the behavior and actions of organizational
members (Lado & Wilson, 1994; Williamson, 1981). Barney (1986) argued that an
organizational culture can be the source of competitive advantage because it is valuable,
rare, imperfectly imitable and non-substitutable. King et al. (2001) specifically proposed
that resources that are located in employees or physical systems are inherently easier to
imitate than resources residing in managerial systems or organizational culture. The
relationship between organizational culture and work-family issues is presented in the
following section.
Work-Family Issues
Issues of work and family have been extensively studied by scholars in sociology,
psychology and organizational behavior. Work-family issues are generally categorized
into two ways: Work-family conflict and work-family facilitation (e.g., Frone, 2002;
Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). Literature on organizational behavior has shown that the
reason for organizations to be interested in work and family issues is due to the important
outcomes of such issues at organizational, individual, and family levels, and ultimately,
all levels have the potential to influence one another. The most widely studied
organizational-level outcomes of work and family issues include absenteeism (e.g.,
Kossek & Ozeki 1999), turnover (e.g., Greenhaus, Parasuraman, & Collins 2001),
organizational commitment (e.g., Kossek & Ozeki 1999), and performance (Netemeyer,
Maxam, & Pullig, 2005). It has been suggested that work-family conflict is positively
11
associated with absenteeism and turnover, while negatively related to organizational
commitment and performance (Harris et al., 2007). At the individual level, work-family
conflict is suggested to be negatively related to job satisfaction and mental and physical
health, and positively related to substance abuse (Harris et al., 2007). Finally, there is
substantial evidence across industries that stress and conflict originating from the
workplace may affect the family. Literature suggests that work-family conflict is
negatively related to marital quality and relationships with children (Harris et al, 2007).
Previous research reveals clear connections between work-family issues and
organizational culture (e.g., Hammonds, Furchgott, Hamm, & Judge, 1997; Thompson,
Beauvais, & Lyness, 1999). It is suggested that organizations have a unique cultural lens
through which they view an employee’s family life. Consequently, organizations differ
significantly on the family-friendliness of the culture, or the work-family culture. Warren
and Johnson (1995) defined a company with a family-friendly culture as one where “the
overarching philosophy or belief structure is sensitive to the family needs of its
employees and is supportive of employees who are combining paid work and family
roles”, while Allen (2001) described “family supportive organization perceptions” as the
“global perceptions that employees form regarding the extent to which the organization is
family supportive”. Building on the concept of organizational culture, Thompson et al.
(1999) developed the most widely citied definition of work-family culture: the “shared
assumptions, beliefs, and values regarding the extent to which an organization supports
and values the integration of employees’ work and family lives.” According to Thompson
et al. (1999), work-family culture consists of three dimensions: managerial support for
work-family balance, career consequences associated with utilizing work-family benefits,
12
and organizational time expectations that may interfere with family and other non-work
responsibilities. Using survey data from managers and professionals in a variety of
industries, they found that perceptions of a supportive work-family culture were related
to greater use of work-family benefits, lower work-family conflict, and higher
commitment to the organization.
Literature on work-family issues has revealed that industry context plays a critical
role in shaping the relationships between employees, their jobs, and their families (Harris,
et al., 2007). Aside from the work-related strains and conflicts that tend to occur across
industries, there are a number of specific characteristics, cultural norms or expectations in
the hotel industry regarding behavior or attitude that are particularly relevant to
employees’ work-family interface. For instance, many positions in hotels require long
and irregular hours because of the 24/7 nature of the hotel business. To balance the needs
from guests, employees, and owners, labor scheduling can be particularly challenging for
managers (Thompson, 1998). Hotels companies often have norms that encourage
employees to work as many hours as possible, including weekends and holidays.
However, using a national sample of married couples working in a variety of industries,
Presser (2000) found that working evening or night shifts, or working rotating schedules
and weekends, significantly increased the likelihood of marriages ending in separation or
divorce within five years. In addition, it has been reported that hotels have a “culture of
face time”, which refers to an expectation that employees, especially managers, must be
physically present at virtually all times, regardless of the actual necessity of them being
there (Munck, 2001). Closely related to this norm is a widespread belief in the hotel
industry that employees must “pay their dues” to get ahead (e.g., Eder & Lundberg 1990).
13
If career dedication and employee value are measured by hours present at work,
employees will be reluctant to leave early or take time off for family reasons (e.g.,
Thompson et al., 1999). Moreover, the hotel industry is also well known for the frequent
relocation of managers. As a major part of career advancement in the hotel industry,
relocation has been reported as a major contributor to work-family conflict because it is
disruptive and stressful to family (Lu & Cooper 1990; Martin 1999).
Previous research recognized that management jobs in the hotel industry are noted
for having characteristics known to be detrimental to family life, e.g., long and irregular
hours, emphasis on face time, frequent relocation, etcetera (Harris et al, 2007). In fact,
Presser (2003) found that lodging management is one of the U.S.’s top ten occupations
with nonstandard work schedules, as well as having the highest percentage of working
varying shifts and weekends. Such characteristics are regarded as related to some of the
most acute human resource issues in the industry, including turnover. According to a
study conducted by Smith Travel Research (2003), turnover rates average 50 percent for
hotel hourly employees and 21 percent for hotel mangers. Moreover, it has been shown
that the problem for the hotel industry is employees leaving the industry altogether, more
so than employees leaving one hotel company for another. Participants in Stalcup and
Pearson’s (2001) study mentioned long hours as a major reason for quitting the industry.
The hotel industry, indeed, has been said to have a “turnover culture” (Deery & Shaw
1997, p.377).
It is reported that several hotel companies have implemented policies and
programs to address work and family issues. For instance, to emphasize the importance
of a balanced life, the Day Hospitality Group adopted a program that required a 90-day
14
sabbatical leave for GMs with five years at the company (Enz & Siguaw, 2000). The
management of one Ritz-Carlton hotel decided to allow the front-office employees to set
their own work schedules as part of an effort to increase employee empowerment
(Dittman, 1999; Enz & Siguaw 2000). Another example is the MGM Grand and Stations
Casinos, which offered its employees 24-hour, seven-day-a-week, on-site child-care
centers (DeLoretta, 1999). Some hotel companies are also experimenting with job-
sharing. It has been reported that Sheraton’s job-sharing practices among sales managers
has created flexibility allowing managers to handle changing work and family needs and
has had positive outcomes for guests (Dittman, 1999; Enz & Siguaw 2000).
Enz and Siguaw (2000) suggested that family-friendly practices may be beneficial
to the hotel industry because among companies using human resources best practices,
which included a number of family-friendly practices, employee satisfaction increased,
productivity increased, and turnover decreased. Recent research suggests that, from a
strategic human resources perspective, hotel organizations should recognize that family-
friendly practices have potential strategic value and are not a liability (Harris et al., 2007).
However, there is evidence showing that work-family programs and policies designed to
mitigate the difficulties of employees may have a greater impact on the organizational
image and reputation than on the employees’ well being (Blum, Fields, & Goodman,
1994). Recent studies have strongly argued that the enactment of family-friendly policies
and their translation into day-to-day operations require a positive work-family culture
(Santos & Cabral-Cardoso, 2008; Swanberg, 2004). Particularly, in the hotel industry,
because only a few hotel companies appear to have embraced family-friendly approaches
to organizing work, implementing family-friendly policies and practices into
15
organizational strategic management and changing to a family-friendly culture has the
potential of enabling hotel organizations to gain competitive advantage through reduced
absenteeism, reduced turnover, and better retention and productivity of employees
(Crouter et al., 2004; Harris et al., 2007). Unfortunately, due to the lack of rigorous
research and a guiding framework, how hospitality companies incorporate work-family
issues into their strategic planning processes and their organizational culture has not been
revealed, and little evidence of the effectiveness of hotel companies’ work-family
practices is known. How such work-family practices may affect the organizational
context and may contribute to hotel companies’ strategic management and organizational
culture, and whether the leaders of hotels factor work-family issues into their SIPs and
relate them to maximize their hotels’ competitive advantages remain unexplored.
Previous research has advocated that rigorous and systematic research should be carried
out in this regard (Crouter et al., 2004; Harris et al., 2007).
Summary and Research Questions
To summarize, previous research indicates that SIPs are critical to organizations’
success because SIPs affect the formulation of business strategies. In the hotel industry,
human resources related factors, including work-family factors, are widely regarded as
important concerns and sources of competitive advantage for industry leaders. Work-
family issues are also associated with organizational culture, and functional work-family
practices are proposed to be sources of competitive advantage for organizations. However,
in the hotel industry, it remains unknown whether or the extent to which GMs factor
work-family issues into their SIP thinking. Further, there is no established theoretical
16
framework that outlines the relationship(s) between work-family issues and hotel
executives’ SIPs. In addition, the hotel industry has been shown to have a culture
supporting long and irregular hours, emphasis on face time, and frequent relocation.
Therefore, in this study, we seek to propose a framework that could address the following
research questions:
1. How do hotel GMs identify work-family issues as components of their strategic
issue perceptions, or SIPs (specifically, strategic opportunities, threats, and
competitive advantages)?
2. How does hotel organizational culture, as perceived by hotel GMs, relate to the
work-life issues perceived by them?
METHOD
Data Collection
Realizing the infancy of theory linking work-family and strategic issues in the
hospitality industry, this study applies a qualitative research method in an attempt to build
theory. Specifically, we collected data through audiotaped in-depth interviews with hotel
GMs and then proposed a framework to outline the merging of concepts generated from
our interviews. We believe a qualitative research approach is appropriate for this study, in
that it is can help to develop an better understanding of a relatively new subject and to
“provide greater insight into reasons underlying various behaviors, practices, attitudes
and decision-making processes, and provide greater depth of knowledge on a given
subject.” (Hampton, 1999).
17
This study is part of a larger-scale research project funded by a research grant
from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The overall project aims to explore work-family
issues at all levels in the hotel industry, including the corporate executives, hotel GMs,
hotel departmental managers and hourly employees. In this study, hotel GMs were
identified via referrals from an Advisory Council of hotel industry executives, the
President of the American Hotel & Lodging Association, and the alumni network of a
large, east coast university. Interviews with hotel GMs involved visiting hotels across the
country and conducting approximate one-hour, on-site, in-person interviews with each
GM.
A total of 49 GMs were interviewed by at least two researchers, which consisted
of both the authors and trained Ph.D. students. The interviews were semi-structured with
a number of specific questions, as shown in Table 1, having been prepared in advance.
These questions were developed based on several fundamental concepts that this research
aims to investigate, while in the meantime to minimize the possibility of misleading or
“suggesting” any directions to the interviewees. The concepts explicitly addressed in the
interview questions include SIPs (opportunities, threats and competitive advantages),
hotel culture, career advancement, turnover, and family life. Moreover, as revealed in the
literature, workplace flexibility plays a critical role in work-family issues and human
resources. Therefore, two specific questions were developed to address this topic, and all
interviewers were trained to ensure these two questions would be asked if they were not
mentioned earlier in the interviews. Therefore, the GMs were given freedom to express
their own thoughts and concerns first, and when they did mention human resources or
work-family related issues, the interviewers then followed up with more specific
18
questions to further explore those issues. For example, a number of GMs first provided
“people” or human resources as their hotels’ competitive advantage, and, when
answering the workplace flexibility related question, explained various work-family
policies and practices to justify their perceived high level of workplace flexibility. In this
case, the interviewers followed up with questions such as: “do you think these work-
family policies and programs contribute to your hotel’s competitive advantage? Why?”
Also, when a hotel GM mentioned family issues as a reason of turnover, the interviewer
would ask question of whether anything had been done in this particular GM’s hotel to
minimize the turnover caused by family reasons.
(Insert Table 1 about here)
Among the 49 GMs, 45 were male and four were female, they were 37-62 years
old, with 13-45 years overall employment experience in the hotel industry, including 1-25
years as GM. All GMs supervised large and full-service hotels, ranged between 218 and
2,000 guest rooms and had 105 to 1,200 employees. Large, full service hotels were the
subject of our study in order to focus on GMs who both have some strategic
responsibilities and who have multiple managers reporting to them. Among all GMs, 46
were employed by one of the major international hotel companies including Accor,
Marriott, Starwood, Hilton, InterContinental, Fairmont, Hyatt, Kimpton, and Wyndham,
while three other GMs were with independent properties. Hotels were located in a
number of major U.S. metropolitan areas including New York, Washington, DC, Kansas
City, Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Orlando.
19
Data Analysis
The 49 interviews were transcribed from tape recordings and each interview produced
seven to 13 single-spaced pages of text. The analysis then proceeded in two major steps
with NVivo7 software. First, the authors coded the data with Strauss and Corbin’s (1998)
open-coding technique, in which the themes and sub-themes were identified from the raw
data and efforts were made to discover their properties and dimensions. Then, with the
axial-coding technique (Strauss & Corbin, 1998), previously identified themes and sub-
themes were analyzed. Spradley’s (1979) definitions of semantic relationships were
applied to facilitate this coding process. As shown in the First Order Analysis section, the
themes summarized from the raw data were highlighted with a number of quotations.
Second, following Strauss and Corbin’s (1998) selective coding methodology, the links
between emerged themes were further examined with a view to create a conceptual
framework that would, at minimum, develop focuses for future research regarding this
topic. Relationships were uncovered between a total of 13 themes that emerged from the
data, and a conceptual framework outlining such relationships is presented in Figure 1.
It should be noted that, due to time, financial and other resource constraints, many
techniques commonly used to ensure trustworthiness (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) were not
applicable or feasible in this research. However, whenever possible, efforts were made to
minimize the potential threats to trustworthiness in the study. For instance, because a
large experienced research team (with six faculty members and over 10 Ph.D. students)
were specifically formed to conduct the larger-scale grant research on work-family issues
in the hotel industry, this study took the advantage of this team and effectively conducted
20
the “peer debriefing” technique recommended by Lincoln and Guba (1085): the authors
presented the raw transcripts and the results of their interpretations, coding and analysis
to this group of researchers in their weekly meetings and obtained their input and
comments. Based on their feedback, the authors revised the interpretation and analysis.
Such peer debriefing was continued weekly for over a month to ensure the group’s
agreement on the interpretation and analysis on the interview data. Moreover, an
internationally recognized work-family researcher was invited to audit and review the
design, the data and the process of interpreting and results generating of this research.
In addition, although member check was not appropriate in this study due to that it was
not feasible to request the GMs to review the transcribed texts for accuracy, all four
interviewers frequently followed up with the interviewees to clarify their meaning and
intent during the interviews, and the transcribed texts of all interviews were proof-read
for accuracy by the other interviewer who also attended the interview. Finally, the
authors re-read the interview data, re-coded the themes, and re-developed the links
between the themes at two different times for the purpose of trying to code and to
interpret the data with “fresh eyes.”
RESULTS
First Order Analysis
In the first order analysis, the raw interview data were examined and categorized,
and certain themes were drawn from the data. This section provides a summary of such
themes as well as representative quotes. As reflected in the research questions, three key
concepts are among the focuses of this study: strategic issues, work-family issues, and
21
organizational culture. In addition to the themes related to these concepts, other themes
that emerged from the data are presented in this section, as well. Please see Table 2 for a
summary of major themes reported in this research.
(Insert Table 2 about here)
Perceived Strategic Issues
The GMs’ perceived strategic opportunities were largely market oriented,
including competition, general economic growth/decline and market demands. For
example, one GM indicated that a weak competitor creates an opportunity for his hotel:
• “It has a dead brand in (a hotel’s name), which is clueless as to what it wants to
be…. It has no stick, so you can get a very good (hotel brand name) and you can
get a very bad (hotel brand name). (GM-3)
Similarly, the GMs perceived strategic threats were closely related to the market,
as well. Competition and changing market demand were of greatest concern. For example:
• “Economy is the biggest issue. Other industry partners, airline industry, you
know, XXX Airlines (airline name), if they go under, you would be in trouble
because they serve this market and the number one advantage to YYY (city name)
is XXX (airline name).” (GM-29)
In terms of competitive advantages, location, facilities, and brand were frequently
mentioned by the GMs. For instance:
• “(This hotel) is changing from a non-branded property to a XXX (brand name).”
(GM-44)
22
• “We have an iconic exterior, so it has the ability to draw people used by the way
it looks, so it has that over our competition. We have a wonderful meeting space
layout… and that’s a real plus.” (GM-1)
A total of 21 GMs discussed human resources as a source of competitive
advantage. Particularly, most of them were being proud of having good managers and/or
low turnover:
• “You know, to me, the biggest thing that has allowed us to be successful is that we
have great people.” (GM-1)
• “Our people are better than when you go across the street or when you drive up
the road.” (GM-42)
Hotel Culture
GMs provided different descriptions to their hotels’ culture. “Pay your dues” and
“face time” were among them:
• “Absolutely, it’s a pay your dues type of attitude…Even though we would like to
get to (a) family-friendly (culture), I think it is in most of hotels, which have all
been large full-services, the department heads all want to be general managers,
so everybody is hugely focused on their discipline and their operation… so I think
it is a professional team, but not a family culture.” (GM-3)
• “In terms of work, the people feel they need to be here, we still have face time...
This is the problem with the 24/7 operation.” (GM-32)
• “I think you need to be out and be seen… I think it’s important to let people know
that you’re there and I think they take a cue from the leadership.” (GM-9)
23
However, many other GMs believed their hotel cultures to be more family
friendly:
• “Family friendly is one of my biggest philosophies. Family comes first, their jobs
are always there, and the family is really the most important thing that you do.
That being said, I always tell my managers that I hire professionals but I don’t
hire people looking for face time. I don’t hire people who hang around 10 o’clock
and send me an email just so I know they are there 10 o’clock.” (GM-44)
• “I think it’s a family-friendly culture in terms of how we interact and in terms of
the different things we do throughout the year, whether it be the associate picnics
or blood drives or Christmas parties or different things that we may give our
associates during our different functions so they can spend more time with their
families.” (GM-19)
• “Our company logo, although evolved, has always been a symbol of work-life
balance …such as my son’s basketball game is very important to them as it is to
me, because they realize that if I am happy personally and I got to meet my
personal needs, then I will be a better performer coming in on Monday morning.”
(GM-22)
Moreover, “caring” and “fun place to work” were also used to describe the hotel
culture:
• “For our associates, (we created) an environment that is welcoming, inviting, as
well as one that they enjoy coming to every day.” (GM-11)
24
• “I would describe it as a participative environment and one that is a caring
environment, one that is – we emphasize whenever we possibly can, that we are
taking care of guests, but we are also taking care of one another.” (GM-1)
Work-family Issues
GMs suggested there is increased flexibility in today’s workplace compared to a few
years ago, but that such flexibility varies by department:
• “When I worked my way up to GM, there was very little flexibility. In my old days,
it was like, ‘here I need you; you do it or I will find someone else to do it’.” (GM-
3)
• “I believe the sales group and the F&B (food and beverage) group enjoy the most
flexibility. I believe the rooms group enjoys the least (flexibility).” (GM-11)
Some GMs also believed that managers need to learn how to manage their
flexibility and work-life balance. For instance:
• “The industry, since it’s open 24-7, there is an opportunity to work yourself as
hard as you want. Most managers, including myself, will stand aside and smile
and let you work yourself as hard as you want because it gets things done. At
some point, the individual and/or good manager will realize that there are some
balance issues and you need to… you can only work so many 14-hour days in a
row… So you learn to balance things better.” (GM-9)
It was also revealed that having a spouse working in the hotel industry helps the
managers balance their work and family:
25
• “… hoteliers always hang out together, you know, you work all night and then
you go out drinking... That’s why there are so many marriages in hotels.” (GM-5)
• “… I have the benefit that my husband not only works in the industry but that he’s
extremely mindful that we both have to contribute 50 percent or 100 percent in,
but collectively we balance very well and we talk about this openly.” (GM-7)
Internal communications of best practices and technology were frequently cited
as beneficial to workplace flexibility:
• “I think it (internal communications) creates a lot of efficiency… absolutely, the
departments that use the (communication) tools more effectively are the
departments that have more flexibility and create more balance in the workplace,
and will ultimately affect their personal balance, as well.” (GM-8)
• “I think some of the mid-level managers now are recognizing the fact that they
can be a little more flexible with their family life or whatever and still be able to
get the job done because a lot of what we do is revolving around computers.”
(GM-7)
• “Technology does make life more flexible.” (GM-4)
Interestingly, although GMs realized the benefits of technology, they also
indicated that technology may have a negative impact on workplace flexibility:
• “The interesting thing that I find is that we attempt to provide the laptop
flexibility for some of our frontline managers and they want nothing to do with it...
they see it as ‘Oh, now I have to do work at home,’ as opposed to maybe ‘I can
get out at 5 o’clock in the afternoon instead of 6.’” (GM-7)
26
Regarding management turnover, several factors, such as low pay, scheduling
conflicts, and lack of advancement opportunities, were suggested by the GMs to explain
hotel employees switching to competitors. For example:
• “For our first (entry) level mangers, money and scheduling are important
(reasons). There is a lot of work for little money. For the next level… department
heads, a primary reason there(for turnover) is realizing they may not have the
opportunities to advance any further.” (GM-4)
In addition, low pay, burnout and family conflict were mentioned as particular
reasons for hotel employees leaving the industry:
• “I did my 70, 80-hour weeks, staying to work until 11 o’clock at night…and it got
to where I was completely burned out and actually gave my notice – I decided to
go with another company...” (GM-10)
• “Some of it (turnover) will be quality of life issues… And money. Those are the
two things that really come to mind.” (GM-6)
Other Important Themes
GMs indicated that their Management style, as related to the hotel culture and
workplace flexibility, evolved to become more family-friendly and flexibility-friendly.
For instance:
• “I believe I am one who has shifted from being an individual that felt “face time”
was much more important than it is. Flexibility is much more obvious now.”
(GM-1)
27
Reasons suggested for the evolution of management style include personalities,
experiences, family life, and the GMs’ mentors. For example:
• “I think you’ll find me to be a more nurturing type of general manager, part of
that is from my experience in this business… there is a broad spectrum of how
you can get things done, that maybe 10 years ago or 20 years ago I wasn’t aware
of.” (GM-12)
• “I think my approach (to workplace flexibility) changed when I had children. I
used to not have to go home, you know, and I didn’t need to be at any games or
any school events, and things like that, so for me, it changed when I had
children.” (GM-2)
• “My management style evolves from what I learned everyday and from the
people around me and from the wonderful leaders that I’ve been exposed to in the
company through the last 21 years.” (GM-8)
Interestingly, many GMs believed that their particular management style, in terms
of emphasizing family-friendly culture and/or work-family balance, was not
commonplace in the industry. For example:
• “There are a lot of GMs that I know who aren’t like me, I tell you, I may be the
exception to the rule in some, my family comes first, work comes second. And I
preach that to every single manager I have in this hotel.” (GM-2)
Moreover, career advancement, usually associated with relocation, was
mentioned as having been influenced by hotel culture. Most GMs believed that turning
down a promotion due to family related reasons is less harmful to a manager’s career
advancement today than it was years ago:
28
• “10, 15 years, ago, everyone in their positions that promoted you and moved you
had gone through the process of moving every year or every 18 months. If you
told them ‘I can’t move’, it would be major negative, because ‘why can’t you
move? If I could move, you should be able to move, too.’ Now, it’s much more of
‘what’s your family situation? How comfortable for you to move?’ You don’t see
that pressure anymore.” (GM-46)
Concomitantly, GMs suggested that there is a limit to use family related excuses
for not relocating:
• “I think if they keep asking, and you keep saying no, there isn’t going to be a
place for you.” (GM-5)
Relocation-related career advancement was suggested to affect a hotel manager’s
family life, as well. For example:
• “It was horrible on my wife because she meets friends and she gets friends for
two, three years, and all of a sudden I say ‘you gotta say goodbye’, and she hates
it. And I can’t blame her now. Before, when we were without kids, it was a little
bit easier to bounce around the country. Now, my children, it tore me apart to
move from Connecticut to New Jersey.” (GM-2)
On the other hand, family life could also influence relocation-related career
advancement issues. For instance:
• “But that has changed. I don’t think there are much more folks saying ‘you know,
I have family in the Northeast. I am not really interested in opening this new hotel
in Chicago for you. I don’t know anyone in Chicago.’ In my era of growing up,
29
that wasn’t the case. And you can do that now in (hotel name). You can stay at a
place eight, ten, eleven years.” (GM-3)
Second Order Analysis
A second order analysis goes beyond the first order themes, and aims to further
link the previously presented themes, and to integrate and refine them to form a
theoretical scheme. To achieve this objective, the authors re-examined each of the
identified themes to investigate the underlining relationships between them based on the
interview data. The results of this process are presented as Figure 1, which incorporates a
total of thirteen themes, starting from management style. As previously discussed, a
GM’s management style may be affected by a number of factors including his/her
personality, experience, mentors, and family life. It should be noted that the effect of
GMs’ family life on the GMs’ and their subordinates’ workplace flexibility comes from
various aspects, including their spouses and children. The data also reveal that
management style influences a hotel’s culture and the workplace flexibility within a
hotel because, as previous quotes have suggested, a more family friendly GM may be
more likely to be willing to create a family friendly culture in the hotel and to promote
flexibility for his/her department managers.
(Insert Figure 1 about here)
As previously discussed, hotel culture affects hotel managers’ family lives. First,
it directly affects hotel managers’ career advancement, particularly regarding relocation-
related career advancement. As hotels’ cultures shift from focusing on work only to
30
allowing managers to turn down promotions/relocations for family reasons, managers
may feel they have greater freedom and flexibility to design their career paths. Second,
hotel culture is related to workplace flexibility, in that hotel managers have more
flexibility in a culture they perceive as more family friendly. For example:
• “I don’t think we have even ever denied someone time off, ‘I need to be away this
weekend, I need to do this on that day’, as it relates to a personal matter or family
matter. Because that’s really the whole core of anyone’s existence, I believe. I
guess that’s because that’s what I expect for myself, that that’s how we hold our
associates as well.” (GM-1)
GMs suggested workplace flexibility has improved significantly in the past
decade, at least partially attributable to the availability of technology and the
communications of best practices. While it is recognized that technology may have
negative impact on workplace flexibility, as well, GMs agree that workplace flexibility
has a positive effect on the quality of family life. For example, a GM described that his
employees like the way he communicates the value of family:
• “We work on a five-day work week with (hotel name) and it’s something that I
really, really try. Now there are days where that won’t happen, and I understand
that and they (managers) understand that. But they are happy because now they
know that if they worked a 6th day, they get an extra day off somewhere down that
the line that’s paid. So they understand this going into the orientation that I am a
firm believer in family…” (GM-1)
As previously discussed, a hotel manager’s family life affects, and also is affected
by, his/her career advancement actions. Furthermore, family life is a factor that affects
31
the hotel managers’ decisions regarding switching to another hotel and/or leaving the
hotel industry, and when the resulting turnover rate is lower than the competition, it is
regarded as an important part of the people-related competitive advantage.
It is important to point out that the GMs believed “people” to be one of their most
critical competitive advantages, and many of them explicitly stated that low turnover rate
was evidence of having such competitive advantage. One GM explicitly attributed this
competitive advantage to the hotel culture:
• “It does start with the culture of the hotel. We’re very fortunate, we’re very
fortunate with the people and their passion. I mean, Mr. (founder of the company),
he’s a great guy and he’s instilled (the culture) in a lot of people.” (GM-4)
Taking into consideration of all concepts together, Figure 1 suggests that “people”,
or human resources, are an important strategic issue perceived by hotel GMs. The work-
family issues, which are affected interactively by hotel culture, management style, and
family life, are related to this strategic issue. In general, management style, hotel culture,
workplace flexibility and family life work together to have effects on a hotel’s
competitive advantage.
DISCUSSION
This study was commenced with a desire to better understand how hotel GMs
factor work-family issues into their strategic thinking. Particularly, we sought to explore
whether hotel GMs perceive work-family issues, such as workplace flexibility,
communications of best practices, career advancement, and turnover, as related to their
32
perceived strategic issues, including strategic opportunities, threats, and competitive
advantage. In addition, in this research, we explore the relationship between the GMs
perceived hotel culture and their perceived work-family issues. As shown in Figure 1, a
model emerging from the data suggests some answers to the proposed research questions.
Taken as a whole, work-family related issues, such as workplace flexibility,
communications of best practices, turnover, and career advancement, interact with hotel
culture and the GM’s management style, and are also related to technology; and all these
relationships together provide an overall work-family-related domain that is closely
related to competitive advantage. Therefore, this model suggests that, when a hotel is
perceived by a GM as having a family-friendly culture and a low turnover rate, work-
family issues could be regarded as part of strategic issues. In addition to the results that
were presented in previous sections, the following are regarded as particularly important
to understand work-family issues from a strategic perspective.
One of the most important findings is that a large number of hotel GMs regarded
people as their organizations’ essential competitive advantages. Literature has revealed
that human resources related issues were three of the top five most important strategic
issues according to executives in the hotel industry (O’Neill et al., 2004), and the findings
of this study appear to support previous research, as the results suggest that “people” was
among “top of mind” issues of GMs. However, on the other hand, it is important to note
that, “people” is not perceived by all hotel GMs as a competitive advantage. As shown in
Table 1, more than half of the 49 hotel GMs did not regard “people” as their hotels’
competitive advantage. Taking into consideration the findings from both this study and
O’Neill et al. (2004), it is clear that, although “people” related issues were widely cited
33
strategic issues, “people” appeared to bring competitive advantage to some hotels, but not
others. Therefore, unlike market conditions that were almost universally accepted as
important SIPs, work-family issues may be regarded as related to a hotel’s strategic
management process only by those GMs who perceive people as their competitive
advantage. While it is understandable that not all hotels have developed the best human
resources that contribute to the competitive advantage, a key contribution of this study is
to provide a guiding framework that demonstrates how a number of human resources
related issues (i.e., work-family issues) could contribute to a hotel’s competitive
advantage. Therefore, a direct managerial implication is that, when a hotel GM would
like to develop human resources practices into a competitive advantage, the proposed
framework may provide several directions for him/her to pursue.
Moreover, hotel culture, as expected, appears to affect the relationship between
work-family issues and people as a perceived competitive advantage in many ways. Hotel
culture could be perceived by GMs as a “pay your dues,” “family friendly,” and/or
“caring” type of culture. First, hotel culture is suggested to directly influence hotel
employees’ relocation related career advancement opportunities, because a more family
friendly oriented hotel/company might be more tolerant of a hotel manager’s request not
to relocate for family reasons. Second, a hotel’s workplace flexibility is also related to the
culture of the hotel because it is reasonable to expect more flexibility in a more family
friendly hotel. However, it is interesting to note that, based on our interviews, although
there were many GMs who insisted that his/her hotel had a “pay your dues” and
“professional” culture, rather than a family-friendly culture, no differences were detected
between the workplace flexibility perceived by these GMs and the flexibility perceived
34
by the other more “family friendly” GMs. Three explanations could be provided. First,
the GMs may understand “culture” differently. For example, the GMs may interpret
“culture” as what they believe is the most important value that should be perceived by all
hotel employees, while other GMs may have a less concrete definition of “culture” and in
turn, regard all values and perceptions that they believe could benefit the hotel as part of
their perceived culture. Second, management style may have a more significant effect on
workplace flexibility than hotel culture. As the model suggests, management style affects
workplace flexibility and hotel culture. However, it is reasonable that at least part of an
organization’s culture might be the result of other property level employees, previous
employees, or from the parent company, while a current GM could only influence the
hotel’s culture to a certain extent. On the other hand, the GM may have more influences
on workplace flexibility than on hotel culture. That is, although a GM may not be able to
fundamentally change a hotel’s culture from “pay your dues” to “family friendly,” he/she
may be able to adopt some programs and/or practices to improve workplace flexibility.
Therefore, even within different hotel cultures, when GMs have a similar level of concern
for flexibility issues, they may be able to achieve a similar degree of workplace flexibility.
A third reason might be that the interviewees (GMs) tried to provide the “best” answers
(as perceived by them) instead of “real” answers. Although this research tried to
minimize this effect by emphasizing confidentiality and by encouraging their real
feelings, the nature of live interview research makes it difficult to totally eliminate such
possibility.
As discussed, management style plays a critical role in shaping a hotel’s
organizational culture and workplace flexibility. Several factors affect hotel GMs’
35
management styles, including their personalities, experiences, mentors, and family lives.
The findings of this study suggest that hotel GMs’ management style appears to evolve in
a more family friendly direction as GMs’ tenures and experiences accumulate.
Specifically, GMs’ personal family lives influence the evolvement of their management
style and suggest that the more flexibility a GM needs for his/her own family life, the
more flexibility he/she is willing to give to the other managers of the hotel because
“leading by example” is highly valued. The results of this qualitative research suggest
that many aspects of work-life balance, such as workplace flexibility and career
advancement, have improved due to greater attention to work-family culture and/or
practices in recent years. On the other hand, several GMs explicitly pointed out that such
improvements in opportunities for greater work-life balance only occurred in their
respective hotels and were largely due to their unique management styles, and
consequently may not be commonly found across the industry. An interesting question
then arises: were these GMs really unique, or has the overall hotel industry actually
changed? While more future research is needed to address this question, it is now safe to
draw one conclusion: these GMs believed that the work-family culture of the hotel
industry in the earlier days was not appropriate, and therefore, they tried to improve the
opportunities for work-life balance in their respective hotels.
CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
This study is an attempt to investigate hotel GMs’ perceived work-family issues
from a strategic perspective. Based on 49 interviews of hotel GMs, a conceptual
framework is proposed to outline the relationships between hotel culture, GM’s
36
management style, work-family issues, and human resources as sources of competitive
advantage. This framework suggests that work-family issues, including workplace
flexibility, turnover, communications of best practices, and career advancement, are
influenced by hotel culture and the GM’s management style. Although not all hotel GMs
factor work-family issues into their strategic thinking, this study reveals that when human
resources are perceived as a competitive advantage by hotel GMs, work-family issues are
related to hotel GM’s SIPs. Therefore, for hotels that have not yet achieved competitive
advantage based on human resources, the findings of this research may provide certain
directions regarding how to enhance their competitive advantages by addressing a
specific type of human resources issue – work-family balance.
As shown in Figure 1, a total of eighteen relationships were proposed among the
thirteen themes identified from the data. As qualitative research, this study is not able to
statistically test such relationships. Rather, it suggests the directions for future study to
empirically examine the magnitude of these relationships. For example, regarding hotel
culture, future researchers may investigate to what extent it affects employees’ family life,
career advancement and workplace flexibility. Another question is: How does a GM’s
management style relate to hotel culture and employee family life? Answers to these
questions are expected to make significant theoretical and practical contributions, not
only to the further development of work-family research but also to industry practitioners
who seek applicable knowledge regarding improving human resources management and
enhancing their organization’s competitive advantage.
Moreover, as this study is exploratory, certain limitations should be considered in
the interpretation of our findings, and in the meantime suggest directions for future
37
research. First, while a number of informative themes and concepts emerged from the
data, and the relationships among them could be established as the proposed model, we
acknowledge that the data may not represent saturation despite our efforts to have a
stratified sample. Second, emphasis on work-family balance may not yet be popular
practice in the industry. Third, social desirability may be a confounding factor of the
interviewees’ discussion of work-family issues. Consequently, further research
comparing the answers of the hotel GMs to their respective department managers is
needed. Finally, because this study was part of a large-scale grant project that required
data from multi-level management positions, all 49 interviewed GMs represent full-
service hotels, most of which are part of large hotel chains and/or large hotel
management companies. Therefore, other types of hotels, such as small and/or limited
service properties, could be studied in the future to reveal a more complete picture of the
industry.
REFERENCES
Abrahamson, E., & Fombrun, C.J. (1994). Macrocultures: Determinants and
consequences. Academy of Management Review, 19, 728-755.
Allen, T.D. (2001). Family-supportive work environments: The role of organizational
perceptions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58 (3), 414-435.
Barney, J. B. 1986a. Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive
advantage? Academy of Managrement Review, 11, 656-665.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 99-120.
38
Chandler, A.D. (1962). Strategy and Structure: Concepts in the History of American
Industrial Enterprise. MIT.
Christensen, K., & Fahey, L. (1984). Building distinctive competencies into competitive
advantage. Strategic Planning Management, 2, 113-123.
Costa, J. (1995). An empirically based review of the concept of environmental scanning.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7, 4-9.
Costa, J., & Teare, R. (1994). Environmental scanning and the Portuguese hotel sector.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 6, iv-vii.
Crouter, A.C., O’Neill, J.W., Almeida, D.M., & Cleveland, J.N. (2004). Hotel work and
well-being: The Penn State hotel managers initiative. A proposal submitted to the
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
David, F.R. (2001). Strategic Management Concepts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Deery, M.A., & Shaw, R.N. (1997). An exploratory analysis of turnover culture in the
hotel industry in Australia. International Journal of Hospitality Management 16
(4), 375-392.
DeLoretta, J. (November 10, 1999). Stations adding child care. The View.
Dutton, J.E., Walton, E.J., & Abrahamson, E. (1989). Important dimensions of strategic
issues: Separating the wheat from the chaff. Journal of Management Studies, 26
(4), 379-396.
39
Eder, R.W., & Lundberg, C.C. (1990). “Paying your dues” in the hospitality industry:
How functional is the belief? Hospitality Research Journal, 14 (2), 363-369.
Enz, C.A., & Siguaw, J.A. (2000). Best practices in human resources. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Quarterly, 41 (1), 48-61.
Folger, J.P., Hewes, D.E., & Poole, M.S. (1984). Coding social interaction. In Dervin, B
& Voight, M. (eds.), Progress in Communication Sciences. New York: Ablex.
Frone, M.R. (2002). Work-family balance. In Quick, J.C. & Tetrick, L.E. (eds.),
Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology. Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association.
Greenhaus, J.H. & Beutell, N.J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family
roles. Academy of Management Review, 10 (1), 76-88.
Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S., & Collins, K.M. (2001). Career involvement and
family involvement as moderators of relationships between work-family conflict
and withdrawal from a profession. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 6,
91-100.
Grzywacz, J.G., & Marks, N.F. (2000). Reconceptualizing the work-family interface: An
ecological perspective on the correlates of positive and negative spillover between
work and family. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5 (1), 111-126.
Hambrick, D.C. (2004). Upper echelons theory: Origins, twists and turns, and lessons
learned. In Smith, K.G. and Hitt, M.A. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
Management Theory: The Process of Theory Development.
40
Hammonds, K.H., Furchgott, R., Hamm, S., & Judge, P.C. (September 15, 1997). Work
and family: Juggling both is an endless struggle – and companies aren’t helping
much. Business Week, p.96.
Hampton, A. (1999). Qualitative data analysis and interpretation. In Brotherton, B. (eds.),
The handbook of Contemporary Hospitality Management Research. Chichester,
England: John Wiley & Sons.
Harris, R.R., O’Neill, J.W., Cleveland, J.N., & Crouter, A.C. (2007). A model of work-
family dynamics of hotel managers. Annals of Tourism Research, 34 (1), 66-87.
Harrison, J.S. (2003). Strategic analysis for the hospitality industry. Cornell Hotel and
Restaurant Administration Quarterly 44 (2), 139-152.
Harrison, J.S., & Enz, C.A. (2003). Hospitality strategic management: Concepts and
cases. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. pp. 67-100.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D.D., & Sanders, G. (1990). Measuring organizational
cultures: A qualitative and quantitative study across twenty cases. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 35, 286-316.
Jones, G. R. (1983). Transaction costs, property rights, and organizational culture: An
exchange perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly 28, 454-467.
Kossek, E.E., & Ozeki, C. (1999). Bridging the work-family policy and productivity gap:
A literature review. Community, Work and Family 2 (1), 7-32.
Lado, A.A., & Wilson, M.C. (1994). Human resource systems and sustained competitive
advantage: A competency-based perspective. Academy of Management Review,
19 (4), 699-727.
41
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Establishing Trustworthiness, in Naturalistic Inquiry.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Lu, L. & Cooper, C.L. (1990). Stress of job relocation: Progress and prospect. Work and
Stress 4, 121-128.
Martin, R. (1999). Adjusting to job relocation: Relocation preparation can reduce
relocation stress. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 72,
231-235.
Milliken, F.J., Martins, L.L., & Morgan, H. (1998). Explaining organizational
responsiveness to work-family issues: The role of human resource executives as
issue interpreters. Academy of Management Journal 41(5), 580-592.
Mintzberg, H. (1990). Strategy formulation: Schools of thought. In Fredrickson, J.W. (ed.)
Perspectives on Strategic Management. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
Munck, B. (2001). Changing a culture of face time. Harvard Business Review 79(10),
125-131.
Netemeyer, R.G., Maxham, J.G., & Pullig, C. (2005). Conflicts in the work-family
interface: Links to job stress, customer service employee performance, and
customer purchase intent. Journal of Marketing 69 (2), 130-143.
Olsen, M.D., Murthy, B., & Teare, R. (1994). CEO perspectives on scanning the global
hotels business environment. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 6, 3-9.
O’Neill, J.W., Beauvais, L.L., & Scholl, R.W. (2004). Strategic issues and determinant
factors of an interorganizational macroculture in the lodging industry. Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Research, 28 (4) 483-506.
42
Presser, H.B. (2000). Nonstandard work schedules and marital instability. Journal of
Marriage and the Family 62 (1), 93-110.
Presser, H.B. (2004). Employment in a 24/7 economy: Challenges for the family. In
Crouter, A.C., & Booth, A. (eds.), Work-Family Challenges for Low-Income
Parents and Their Children. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Saffold, G.S. (1988). Culture traits, strength, and organizational performance: Moving
beyond “strong” culture. Academy of Management Review 13 (4), 546-558.
Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership: A dynamic review. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Schuler, R. S., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Linking competitive strategies with human
resource management practices. Academy of Management Executive, 1,(3), 207-
219.
Simons, T., & Namasivayam, K. (1999). The eye of the beholder: Hotel company CEO
perceptions of threats and opportunities. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 23 (4), 354-370.
Smith Travel Research. (2003). March Announces Full Year 2002 U.S. Lodging Industry
Results.
Snell, S. A. (1992). Control theory in strategic human resource management: The
mediating effect of administrative information. Academy of Management Joumal
35, 292-327.
Stalcup, L.D., & Pearson, T.A. (2001) A model of the causes of management turnover in
hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 25 (1), 17-30.
43
Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA.
Spradley, J. P. (1979). The Ethnographic Interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Thompson, C.A., Beauvais, L.L., & Lyness, K.S. (1999). When work-family benefits are
not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization,
organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational
Behavior 54, 392-415.
Thompson, G.M. (1998). Labor scheduling, part 1. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly 39(5), 22-31.
Walsh, J. (1988). Selectivity and selective perception: An investigation of managers’
belief structures and information processing. Academy of Management Journal,
31, 793-807.
Weick, K. (1985). The significance of corporate culture. In Frost, P., Moore, L, Louis, M.,
Lundberg, C., & Martin, J. (eds.), Organizational Culture, Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
pp. 381-389.
Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach.
American Joumal of Sociology 87, 548-577.
44
Table 1: General Manager Interview Questions
How would you describe the culture you have tried to create in your hotel?
How have you evolved your management style since you became GM?
In terms of your hotel’s long term growth and success, can you describe 2 or 3
strategic opportunities in which you believe your hotel is most interested?
Could you also please describe 2 or 3 strategic threats about which you are most
concerned as it pertains to you hotel? How have your opportunities and threats
changed over the past few years?
Regarding your hotel’s competitive advantages, what does your hotel do better than
its competitors?
What do you perceive as the primary reasons for managers leaving the hotel
industry? And what are the turnover issues at this hotel?
Please tell us the degree of flexibility you have as a GM in planning your own
work. How do you feel such a degree of flexibility affects your family life?
How much flexibility do you think the department managers have in scheduling
their work? How do you perceive such a degree of flexibility to affect their family
life?
Would turning down a promotion or transfer for family-related reasons affect one’s
career progress in your company?
What do your company and your hotel do to help managers in the relocation
processes?
45
Table 2: Major themes and their respective number of times appeared in the interviews
Themes Times Appeared in the Interviews Strategic Issues Strategic Opportunities
Weak competition Growing market demand General economic growth
Strategic Threats Increasing competition Changing market demand General economic environment
Competitive Advantages Location Facilities Brand/parent company People
Management Style Personality Mentor Experience Organizational Culture Pay your dues Face time Family friendly Caring, fun, warm, and others Workplace Flexibility Technology Communications of Best Practice Career Advancement Family Life Turnover Hotel Turnover Industry Turnover
49 6 29 17 49 17 32 8 49 11 15 12 21 49 11 12 41 49 11 9 19 15 49 26 31 49 49 49 49 49
46
Figure 1: A Framework: Work Family Issues and Human Resources as a
Competitive Advantage
Family Life
Hotel Culture
Workplace Flexibility
Career Advancement
Hotel Property Turnover
Industry Turnover
Technology Communications of Best Practices
Management Style
Personality Experience
Mentor
Competitive Advantage
Top Related